Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #488750 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-12-19 07:00 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-12-23 15:09 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 175 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 07:00 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-12-19 08:37 -0600
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 09:49 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 10:00 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 09:56 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-19 08:53 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 12:20 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 14:27 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-19 15:24 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 18:39 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-19 20:53 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 10:08 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:19 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-12-20 10:32 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 12:11 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 21:52 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-21 10:56 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-21 19:24 -0500
Re: Muppets "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-12-19 16:48 -0600
Re: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 18:08 -0500
Re: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 18:26 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-19 15:01 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 18:46 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-19 15:56 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 19:25 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-19 16:44 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 20:01 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-20 07:59 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:07 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:31 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 14:33 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 12:00 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 16:06 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-12-21 12:14 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 17:58 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 12:58 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 15:21 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 16:12 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-12-20 01:32 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 20:40 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-20 08:02 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-12-20 16:47 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:16 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 10:50 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 14:17 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:00 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 08:08 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-20 08:09 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-20 09:17 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:26 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:37 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-21 10:58 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 11:17 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:14 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 14:18 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:48 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 16:04 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 16:55 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 16:59 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 18:30 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 19:40 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:03 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:41 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:03 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 22:38 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:52 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-21 14:53 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 12:32 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-21 19:30 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 16:37 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-22 08:57 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 10:23 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-22 17:23 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 14:53 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 18:57 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-22 20:10 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-22 20:57 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 19:07 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 19:04 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-23 07:39 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 15:03 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-23 12:09 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 15:17 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 15:27 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 20:49 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 07:50 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-24 16:56 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 14:37 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 17:51 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 15:15 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-24 18:41 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 23:33 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 05:48 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-25 09:57 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 17:29 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Joseph Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> - 2017-12-25 20:38 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-25 21:23 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 18:47 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-25 19:09 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-26 00:33 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-26 15:13 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-25 22:10 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-25 07:18 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 18:25 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-12-29 02:01 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-28 21:42 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-28 19:47 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-29 01:04 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-28 23:56 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-25 10:55 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-12-28 21:41 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-24 18:39 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 07:46 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 12:23 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-25 21:57 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 20:47 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:31 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-20 18:36 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:10 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 12:13 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 16:41 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 16:42 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 14:16 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-12-20 22:56 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 15:12 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 15:26 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-20 23:37 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 18:42 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 16:26 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-21 08:45 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-21 09:29 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-12-20 15:30 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:08 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 18:36 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:09 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 15:28 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:02 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-20 16:33 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 21:09 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-20 22:55 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 09:38 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-21 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 21:59 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 02:56 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 11:45 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 18:02 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 22:39 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-22 23:01 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 09:05 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 10:04 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-23 14:00 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 20:51 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 06:15 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 14:38 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 17:43 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 21:25 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-24 09:58 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 08:29 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-24 06:06 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-24 17:53 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-24 03:41 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 09:12 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-24 15:32 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 08:52 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 14:40 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 19:49 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 14:55 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 20:03 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 17:53 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-12-22 20:49 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 16:26 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 15:36 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-23 08:19 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 06:30 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-23 15:09 -0500
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-23 15:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p1mcqr$4k6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #489143 |
Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: > On 2017-12-22 19:04, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 12:11:02 PM UTC+11, >> k...@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 18:57:26 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Joerg wrote on 12/22/2017 5:53 PM: >>>>> On 2017-12-22 14:23, Michael A Terrell wrote: >>>>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joerg: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, that goes for about 1/2 million people around here, >>>>>>>> many of which regularly join the big trek on I-80 to >>>>>>>> Silicon Valley. It's not about me, I don't have to travel >>>>>>>> much. If we as a nation want to encourage more usage of >>>>>>>> public transport then the method above ain't working. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They don't *WANT* rail. You do but blame them because >>>>>>> you're not pleased with their decision. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Railroads in the United States were built to haul cotton and >>>>>> coal. Passenger service was always a secondary service. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not always: >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_railway_history#/media/File:DeWitt_Clinton_(locomotive).jpg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > http://passengertrainjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/lv-passenger-01.jpg >>>>> >>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Amtrak_California_Zephyr_banner.jpg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > .... I grew up with a major >>>>>> rail line behind my home that ran from Detroit to Florida. >>>>>> There were two daily passenger runs, in a single >>>>>> railcar/engine. It had controls on both ends, and the >>>>>> passengers rode n the middle. It was an express that ran >>>>>> between two cities, early morning and in the evening. >>>>>> >>>>>> Freight cars were designed to fit bales of cotton, with no >>>>>> wasted space. Coal cars and ore carriers are filled from the >>>>>> top, and emptied from the bottom, over a low bridge. The >>>>>> steel mill had trucks lined up to receive the coal, and to >>>>>> transport it to their mile+ diameter coal pile. It was a 24 >>>>>> hour a day operation to keep a couple week supply of coal to >>>>>> convert into coke, for the carbon needed to make steel. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We have some lines here as well that were mostly for freight. >>>>> The ones into the Sierra are now largely abandoned and one has >>>>> become my mountain bike route to the east and west. Rail >>>>> freight has gone to trucks in our area. Last time I saw freight >>>>> cars being hauled to Schnitzer Steel in Rancho Cordova, CA, a >>>>> recycling company, was in the late 90's. That track has now >>>>> become a lightrail line, passengers-only. >>>> >>>> It's often no point trying to get you to understand things when >>>> you have made up your mind. You are cherry picking a few >>>> isolated facts to support a wrong conclusion. Railroads have >>>> always been about freight and passenger service was only provided >>>> because it was needed and often was the justification for giving >>>> the railroad eminent domain to obtain right of way. Freight is >>>> what pays for the railroad and every railroad in the country >>>> would happily see passenger service go away so they can more >>>> efficiently move freight. Passenger service really does waste >>>> rail time and space relative to the economic benefit. >>> >>> With a few exceptions (that can be counted on one hand) you're >>> absolutely right. Passenger rail in the US is just silly. It >>> makes no sense and (so) people don't want it. >> >> Passenger rail in the US is implemented very badly. This is probably >> a more or less deliberate ploy to sell more cars, and to make >> air-travel more attractive. >> > > In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short distance > passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what people say. > Not freight. No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. > Shorthaul freight by rail is all but dead and the evidence is > right next to my regular mountain bike route. On long stretches it flips and > there freight wins. The problem is that the longhaul freight trains also use > the tracks that are use by shorthaul commuter trains and that does not work > well. That is one of the reasons why many people in Northern California > don't consider Amtrak. No one is talking about "shorthaul" freight other than you. Why did you bring it up? Yes, rail works best with long trains hauling lots of heavy freight that isn't practical to haul other ways. Here it is coal and ore and cars to/from the port of Baltimore. When I worked for the railroad and dug under the tracks, the ballast was cemented together by the ashes of steam engines long gone. Now the ballast is covered by pieces of taconite fallen from the hopper cars. > For longer distances on trains you need bullet trains and with very few > exceptions those systems aren't and never will be anywhere close to making a > profit, or just breaking even. They are on the taxpayer dime forever which > isn't good. > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy >> >> The US political system does work to favour capitalist with lots of >> money to spend on lobbyists over less well-off regular travelers. >> > > Now that's nonsense. > -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-23 12:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa7retFd3ssU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #489176 |
On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: > Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: [...] >> >> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short distance >> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >> people say. >> Not freight. > > No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. > It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. > Not true. https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year after year. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-23 15:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p1mdjs$8rh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #489178 |
Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: > On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: > > [...] > >>> >>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short distance >>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >>> people say. >>> Not freight. >> >> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. >> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. >> > > Not true. > > https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways > > > Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its > development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year after year. Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have said, "in the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet trains, but again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in the US aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all practical purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger railroads. If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support subsidies of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a delicate balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are worth the expense, others aren't. Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-23 15:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p1me75$cvh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #489180 |
rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: > Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >> >> [...] >> >>>> >>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short distance >>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >>>> people say. >>>> Not freight. >>> >>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. >>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. >>> >> >> Not true. >> >> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >> >> >> >> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its >> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year after year. > > Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have said, "in > the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet trains, but > again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in the US > aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all practical > purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger railroads. > > If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support subsidies > of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a delicate > balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are worth > the expense, others aren't. > > Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes down to geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well in some countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they discuss failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-23 20:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lq1u3ddnfqkkghdk8j1r54en3m6r5cev2c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489182 |
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> >>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short distance >>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >>>>> people say. >>>>> Not freight. >>>> >>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. >>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. >>>> >>> >>> Not true. >>> >>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>> >>> >>> >>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its >>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year after year. >> >> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have said, "in >> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet trains, but >> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in the US >> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all practical >> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger railroads. >> >> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support subsidies >> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a delicate >> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are worth >> the expense, others aren't. >> >> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! > >Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes down to >geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well in some >countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they discuss >failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling from one place to another).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-24 07:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <faa0mmFrugtU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #489196 |
On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short distance >>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >>>>>> people say. >>>>>> Not freight. >>>>> >>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. >>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not true. >>>> >>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its >>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year after year. >>> >>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have said, "in >>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet trains, but >>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in the US >>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all practical >>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger railroads. >>> >>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support subsidies >>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a delicate >>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are worth >>> the expense, others aren't. >>> >>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >> >> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes down to >> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well in some >> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they discuss >> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. > > And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. > >> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. > > Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling > from one place to another). > We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail goes. Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this case, would be. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-24 16:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nf804dpmiembff3tpajnd1po3gsjqpjmqs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489238 |
On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short distance >>>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >>>>>>> people say. >>>>>>> Not freight. >>>>>> >>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. >>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not true. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its >>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year after year. >>>> >>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have said, "in >>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet trains, but >>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in the US >>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all practical >>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger railroads. >>>> >>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support subsidies >>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a delicate >>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are worth >>>> the expense, others aren't. >>>> >>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >>> >>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes down to >>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well in some >>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they discuss >>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >> >> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >> >>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >> >> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling >> from one place to another). >> > >We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon >Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must >live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail goes. >Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All >that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this case, >would be. No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-24 14:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <faaoi2F2pbgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #489260 |
On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > wrote: > >> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short distance >>>>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >>>>>>>> people say. >>>>>>>> Not freight. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. >>>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not true. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its >>>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year after year. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have said, "in >>>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet trains, but >>>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in the US >>>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all practical >>>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger railroads. >>>>> >>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support subsidies >>>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a delicate >>>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are worth >>>>> the expense, others aren't. >>>>> >>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >>>> >>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes down to >>>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well in some >>>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they discuss >>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >>> >>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >>> >>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >>> >>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling >>> from one place to another). >>> >> >> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon >> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must >> live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail goes. >> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All >> that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this case, >> would be. > > No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large > cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between > those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any > kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. > When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the next one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't be because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let any land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-24 17:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p1pb0i$gdu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #489265 |
Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: > On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short distance >>>>>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >>>>>>>>> people say. >>>>>>>>> Not freight. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. >>>>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its >>>>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year >>>>>>> after year. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have said, "in >>>>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet trains, but >>>>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in the US >>>>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all >>>>>> practical >>>>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger railroads. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support >>>>>> subsidies >>>>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a >>>>>> delicate >>>>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are >>>>>> worth >>>>>> the expense, others aren't. >>>>>> >>>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >>>>> >>>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes down to >>>>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well in some >>>>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they discuss >>>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >>>> >>>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >>>> >>>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >>>> >>>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling >>>> from one place to another). >>>> >>> >>> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon >>> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must >>> live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail goes. >>> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All >>> that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this case, >>> would be. >> >> No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large >> cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between >> those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any >> kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. >> > > When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the next > one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't be > because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let any > land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the meaning of "few"? -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-24 15:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <faaqonF38k1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #489266 |
On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: > Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: >> On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short >>>>>>>>>> distance >>>>>>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >>>>>>>>>> people say. >>>>>>>>>> Not freight. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make >>>>>>>>> money. >>>>>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger >>>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to >>>>>>>> cover its >>>>>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year >>>>>>>> after year. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have >>>>>>> said, "in >>>>>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet >>>>>>> trains, but >>>>>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in >>>>>>> the US >>>>>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all >>>>>>> practical >>>>>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger >>>>>>> railroads. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support >>>>>>> subsidies >>>>>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a >>>>>>> delicate >>>>>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are >>>>>>> worth >>>>>>> the expense, others aren't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes >>>>>> down to >>>>>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well >>>>>> in some >>>>>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they >>>>>> discuss >>>>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >>>>> >>>>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >>>>> >>>>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >>>>> >>>>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling >>>>> from one place to another). >>>>> >>>> >>>> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon >>>> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must >>>> live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail >>>> goes. >>>> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All >>>> that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this >>>> case, >>>> would be. >>> >>> No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large >>> cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between >>> those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any >>> kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. >>> >> >> When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the next >> one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't be >> because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let any >> land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). > > Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the meaning > of "few"? > It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with San Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way back up the other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are many other areas in the US that are like that. Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People can't afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to work there. However, the infrastructure is often so messed up that rail is no longer a viable option. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-24 18:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6me04d5eu8dmf9btdkmirt5fp0splq7gld@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489267 |
On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 15:15:34 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: >> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: >>> On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short >>>>>>>>>>> distance >>>>>>>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >>>>>>>>>>> people say. >>>>>>>>>>> Not freight. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make >>>>>>>>>> money. >>>>>>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger >>>>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to >>>>>>>>> cover its >>>>>>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year >>>>>>>>> after year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have >>>>>>>> said, "in >>>>>>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet >>>>>>>> trains, but >>>>>>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in >>>>>>>> the US >>>>>>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all >>>>>>>> practical >>>>>>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger >>>>>>>> railroads. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support >>>>>>>> subsidies >>>>>>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a >>>>>>>> delicate >>>>>>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are >>>>>>>> worth >>>>>>>> the expense, others aren't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes >>>>>>> down to >>>>>>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well >>>>>>> in some >>>>>>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they >>>>>>> discuss >>>>>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >>>>>> >>>>>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >>>>>> >>>>>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling >>>>>> from one place to another). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon >>>>> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must >>>>> live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail >>>>> goes. >>>>> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All >>>>> that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this >>>>> case, >>>>> would be. >>>> >>>> No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large >>>> cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between >>>> those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any >>>> kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. >>>> >>> >>> When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the next >>> one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't be >>> because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let any >>> land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). >> >> Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the meaning >> of "few"? >> > >It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through >there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with San >Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way back up >the other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are many other areas >in the US that are like that. Good Lord, Joerg, you're dense today. Would it help if I changed "cities" to "metropolitan areas"? Good fucking grief! > >Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial >areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People can't >afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to work >there. However, the infrastructure is often so messed up that rail is no >longer a viable option. Get a life, Joerg!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-24 23:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p1pv2j$ha4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #489267 |
Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 6:15 PM: > On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: >> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: >>> On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short >>>>>>>>>>> distance >>>>>>>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >>>>>>>>>>> people say. >>>>>>>>>>> Not freight. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make >>>>>>>>>> money. >>>>>>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger >>>>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to >>>>>>>>> cover its >>>>>>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year >>>>>>>>> after year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have >>>>>>>> said, "in >>>>>>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet >>>>>>>> trains, but >>>>>>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in >>>>>>>> the US >>>>>>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all >>>>>>>> practical >>>>>>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger >>>>>>>> railroads. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support >>>>>>>> subsidies >>>>>>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a >>>>>>>> delicate >>>>>>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are >>>>>>>> worth >>>>>>>> the expense, others aren't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes >>>>>>> down to >>>>>>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well >>>>>>> in some >>>>>>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they >>>>>>> discuss >>>>>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >>>>>> >>>>>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >>>>>> >>>>>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling >>>>>> from one place to another). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon >>>>> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must >>>>> live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail >>>>> goes. >>>>> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All >>>>> that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this >>>>> case, >>>>> would be. >>>> >>>> No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large >>>> cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between >>>> those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any >>>> kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. >>>> >>> >>> When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the next >>> one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't be >>> because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let any >>> land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). >> >> Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the meaning >> of "few"? >> > > It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through > there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with San > Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way back up the > other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are many other areas in the > US that are like that. OMG! Do people have to spell out everything for you? Ok, replace city with "Metropolitan Area". > Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial > areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People can't > afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to work there. Not "any" or anything like it. I supposed you can count the subway as passenger rail, them I won't argue against that. But when we have been discussing passenger train service, local metropolitan subway service hasn't been included. The longer distance rail service is usually subsidized or it wouldn't exist. No one is willing to pay for it at full price. > However, the infrastructure is often so messed up that rail is no longer a > viable option. Don't know what you mean by that, don't care. It is what it is. The problem isn't infrastructure, the problem is the location and density of people in the US isn't like Europe. Here metropolitan areas are usually like molds on a culture. Mostly they started at a point and grew out into a large disc some distance to the next. In Europe there were many small towns that started an hour or two walk from each other along roads and they coalesced into a large metropolitan area. Perfect for interconnection by rail. Here we have much longer distances between metro areas and rail often takes too long to be useful. So we fly. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 05:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <76127bb7-7571-4e9d-ad77-f685c3c2083d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #489278 |
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 6:15 PM: > > On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: > >> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: > >>> On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>>>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: > >>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: > >>>>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short > >>>>>>>>>>> distance > >>>>>>>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what > >>>>>>>>>>> people say. > >>>>>>>>>>> Not freight. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make > >>>>>>>>>> money. > >>>>>>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger > >>>>>>>>>> service. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Not true. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to > >>>>>>>>> cover its > >>>>>>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year > >>>>>>>>> after year. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have > >>>>>>>> said, "in > >>>>>>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet > >>>>>>>> trains, but > >>>>>>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in > >>>>>>>> the US > >>>>>>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all > >>>>>>>> practical > >>>>>>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger > >>>>>>>> railroads. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support > >>>>>>>> subsidies > >>>>>>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a > >>>>>>>> delicate > >>>>>>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are > >>>>>>>> worth > >>>>>>>> the expense, others aren't. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes > >>>>>>> down to > >>>>>>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well > >>>>>>> in some > >>>>>>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they > >>>>>>> discuss > >>>>>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling > >>>>>> from one place to another). > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon > >>>>> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must > >>>>> live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail > >>>>> goes. > >>>>> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All > >>>>> that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this > >>>>> case, > >>>>> would be. > >>>> > >>>> No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large > >>>> cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between > >>>> those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any > >>>> kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. > >>>> > >>> > >>> When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the next > >>> one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't be > >>> because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let any > >>> land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). > >> > >> Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the meaning > >> of "few"? > >> > > > > It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through > > there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with San > > Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way back up the > > other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are many other areas in the > > US that are like that. > > OMG! Do people have to spell out everything for you? Ok, replace city with > "Metropolitan Area". > > > Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial > > areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People can't > > afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to work there. > > Not "any" or anything like it. I supposed you can count the subway as > passenger rail, them I won't argue against that. But when we have been > discussing passenger train service, local metropolitan subway service hasn't > been included. The longer distance rail service is usually subsidized or it > wouldn't exist. No one is willing to pay for it at full price. > > > However, the infrastructure is often so messed up that rail is no longer a > > viable option. > > Don't know what you mean by that, don't care. It is what it is. The > problem isn't infrastructure, the problem is the location and density of > people in the US isn't like Europe. Bits of it are very like Europe, and they are the areas that could use European style passenger rail services. The norther-eastern corridor is the obvious example, but California has a least two areas that could use it. Australia - as whole - has a tenth of the population density of the US (and a hundredth of that of Europe), but it's still one of the most urbanised countries in the world, and both Sydney and Melbourne have extensive passenger rail services - heavy rail - to get commuters in and out of the city centres. Melbourne also had trams from early on, as did Sydney, until it dumped them, but Sydney is now spending a lot on installing light rail to service some of the inner suburbs. > Here metropolitan areas are usually like molds on a culture. Mostly they > started at a point and grew out into a large disc some distance to the next. > In Europe there were many small towns that started an hour or two walk from > each other along roads and they coalesced into a large metropolitan area. > Perfect for interconnection by rail. Here we have much longer distances > between metro areas and rail often takes too long to be useful. So we fly. Twaddle. Urban development in the US largely preceded the development of any kind of mass transport. In both the US and Europe, old cities got a lot more population after mass transport made it practical. America made different choices in the late 1930's largely because the monopolistic antics of the National City Lines company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy It was an epic pratfall, and ever since then Americans have been denying how thoroughly their public transport got trashed by these antics. In this case, the American exception was an exceptional vulnerability to commercial crookedness. Population density doesn't actually come into it, though bone-headedness of the people who sat on their hands while their public transport got trashed deserves some attention. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 09:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p1r3li$mf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #489282 |
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote on 12/25/2017 8:48 AM: > On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: >> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 6:15 PM: >>> On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: >>>> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: >>>>> On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short >>>>>>>>>>>>> distance >>>>>>>>>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what >>>>>>>>>>>>> people say. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not freight. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make >>>>>>>>>>>> money. >>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger >>>>>>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not true. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to >>>>>>>>>>> cover its >>>>>>>>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year >>>>>>>>>>> after year. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have >>>>>>>>>> said, "in >>>>>>>>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet >>>>>>>>>> trains, but >>>>>>>>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in >>>>>>>>>> the US >>>>>>>>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all >>>>>>>>>> practical >>>>>>>>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger >>>>>>>>>> railroads. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support >>>>>>>>>> subsidies >>>>>>>>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a >>>>>>>>>> delicate >>>>>>>>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are >>>>>>>>>> worth >>>>>>>>>> the expense, others aren't. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes >>>>>>>>> down to >>>>>>>>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well >>>>>>>>> in some >>>>>>>>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they >>>>>>>>> discuss >>>>>>>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling >>>>>>>> from one place to another). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon >>>>>>> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must >>>>>>> live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail >>>>>>> goes. >>>>>>> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All >>>>>>> that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this >>>>>>> case, >>>>>>> would be. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large >>>>>> cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between >>>>>> those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any >>>>>> kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the next >>>>> one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't be >>>>> because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let any >>>>> land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). >>>> >>>> Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the meaning >>>> of "few"? >>>> >>> >>> It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through >>> there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with San >>> Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way back up the >>> other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are many other areas in the >>> US that are like that. >> >> OMG! Do people have to spell out everything for you? Ok, replace city with >> "Metropolitan Area". >> >>> Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial >>> areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People can't >>> afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to work there. >> >> Not "any" or anything like it. I supposed you can count the subway as >> passenger rail, them I won't argue against that. But when we have been >> discussing passenger train service, local metropolitan subway service hasn't >> been included. The longer distance rail service is usually subsidized or it >> wouldn't exist. No one is willing to pay for it at full price. >> >>> However, the infrastructure is often so messed up that rail is no longer a >>> viable option. >> >> Don't know what you mean by that, don't care. It is what it is. The >> problem isn't infrastructure, the problem is the location and density of >> people in the US isn't like Europe. > > Bits of it are very like Europe, and they are the areas that could use European style passenger rail services. The norther-eastern corridor is the obvious example, but California has a least two areas that could use it. > > Australia - as whole - has a tenth of the population density of the US (and a hundredth of that of Europe), but it's still one of the most urbanised countries in the world, and both Sydney and Melbourne have extensive passenger rail services - heavy rail - to get commuters in and out of the city centres. Melbourne also had trams from early on, as did Sydney, until it dumped them, but Sydney is now spending a lot on installing light rail to service some of the inner suburbs. > >> Here metropolitan areas are usually like molds on a culture. Mostly they >> started at a point and grew out into a large disc some distance to the next. > In Europe there were many small towns that started an hour or two walk from >> each other along roads and they coalesced into a large metropolitan area.. >> Perfect for interconnection by rail. Here we have much longer distances >> between metro areas and rail often takes too long to be useful. So we fly. > > Twaddle. Urban development in the US largely preceded the development of any kind of mass transport. In both the US and Europe, old cities got a lot more population after mass transport made it practical. > > America made different choices in the late 1930's largely because the monopolistic antics of the National City Lines company > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy > > It was an epic pratfall, and ever since then Americans have been denying how thoroughly their public transport got trashed by these antics. > > In this case, the American exception was an exceptional vulnerability to commercial crookedness. Population density doesn't actually come into it, though bone-headedness of the people who sat on their hands while their public transport got trashed deserves some attention. Yes, I can see why you have so much trouble with this. You don't seem to get the difference between the railroads we have been discussing and street cars. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 17:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1dcbb7c1-1cd4-493f-8ae5-026113a41a56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #489285 |
On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 1:58:03 AM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote on 12/25/2017 8:48 AM: > > On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > >> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 6:15 PM: > >>> On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: > >>>> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: > >>>>> On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>>>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: > >>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short > >>>>>>>>>>>>> distance > >>>>>>>>>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what > >>>>>>>>>>>>> people say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not freight. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make > >>>>>>>>>>>> money. > >>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger > >>>>>>>>>>>> service. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Not true. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to > >>>>>>>>>>> cover its > >>>>>>>>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year > >>>>>>>>>>> after year. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have > >>>>>>>>>> said, "in > >>>>>>>>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet > >>>>>>>>>> trains, but > >>>>>>>>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in > >>>>>>>>>> the US > >>>>>>>>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all > >>>>>>>>>> practical > >>>>>>>>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger > >>>>>>>>>> railroads. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support > >>>>>>>>>> subsidies > >>>>>>>>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a > >>>>>>>>>> delicate > >>>>>>>>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are > >>>>>>>>>> worth > >>>>>>>>>> the expense, others aren't. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes > >>>>>>>>> down to > >>>>>>>>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well > >>>>>>>>> in some > >>>>>>>>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they > >>>>>>>>> discuss > >>>>>>>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling > >>>>>>>> from one place to another). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon > >>>>>>> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must > >>>>>>> live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail > >>>>>>> goes. > >>>>>>> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All > >>>>>>> that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this > >>>>>>> case, > >>>>>>> would be. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large > >>>>>> cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between > >>>>>> those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any > >>>>>> kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the next > >>>>> one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't be > >>>>> because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let any > >>>>> land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). > >>>> > >>>> Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the meaning > >>>> of "few"? > >>>> > >>> > >>> It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through > >>> there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with San > >>> Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way back up the > >>> other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are many other areas in the > >>> US that are like that. > >> > >> OMG! Do people have to spell out everything for you? Ok, replace city with > >> "Metropolitan Area". > >> > >>> Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial > >>> areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People can't > >>> afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to work there. > >> > >> Not "any" or anything like it. I supposed you can count the subway as > >> passenger rail, them I won't argue against that. But when we have been > >> discussing passenger train service, local metropolitan subway service hasn't > >> been included. The longer distance rail service is usually subsidized or it > >> wouldn't exist. No one is willing to pay for it at full price. > >> > >>> However, the infrastructure is often so messed up that rail is no longer a > >>> viable option. > >> > >> Don't know what you mean by that, don't care. It is what it is. The > >> problem isn't infrastructure, the problem is the location and density of > >> people in the US isn't like Europe. > > > > Bits of it are very like Europe, and they are the areas that could use European style passenger rail services. The norther-eastern corridor is the obvious example, but California has a least two areas that could use it. > > > > Australia - as whole - has a tenth of the population density of the US (and a hundredth of that of Europe), but it's still one of the most urbanised countries in the world, and both Sydney and Melbourne have extensive passenger rail services - heavy rail - to get commuters in and out of the city centres. Melbourne also had trams from early on, as did Sydney, until it dumped them, but Sydney is now spending a lot on installing light rail to service some of the inner suburbs. > > > >> Here metropolitan areas are usually like molds on a culture. Mostly they > >> started at a point and grew out into a large disc some distance to the next. > In Europe there were many small towns that started an hour or two walk from > >> each other along roads and they coalesced into a large metropolitan area.. > >> Perfect for interconnection by rail. Here we have much longer distances > >> between metro areas and rail often takes too long to be useful. So we fly. > > > > Twaddle. Urban development in the US largely preceded the development of any kind of mass transport. In both the US and Europe, old cities got a lot more population after mass transport made it practical. > > > > America made different choices in the late 1930's largely because the monopolistic antics of the National City Lines company > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy > > > > It was an epic pratfall, and ever since then Americans have been denying how thoroughly their public transport got trashed by these antics. > > > > In this case, the American exception was an exceptional vulnerability to commercial crookedness. Population density doesn't actually come into it, though bone-headedness of the people who sat on their hands while their public transport got trashed deserves some attention. > > Yes, I can see why you have so much trouble with this. You don't seem to > get the difference between the railroads we have been discussing and street > cars. I can see why you are having such a problem with this - you don't understand the problem well enough to realise that there is a continuum of travel requirements, ranging from inner-city commuters who are well served by street cars (which much of the world calls trams) through outer suburbs commuters who are better served by heavy rail, to long distance commuters and business travelers, who benefit from fast and direct access to central business district of their destination. The bus maniacs who gutted US public transport also gutted the central railway stations that distributed the outer-suburbs and longer distance commuters. In any sensible city, the airport has some kind of rail link to the centre of town, but I can't remember any, anywhere in the US. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joseph Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 20:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1FF1DFAB0062F22C70000B64D2CF@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #489306 |
On Dec 25, 2017, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote (in article<1dcbb7c1-1cd4-493f-8ae5-026113a41a56@googlegroups.com>): > On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 1:58:03 AM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > > bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote on 12/25/2017 8:48 AM: > > > On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > > > > Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 6:15 PM: > > > > > On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: > > > > > > Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: > > > > > > > On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg<news@analogconsultants.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: > > > > > > > > > > > > Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not freight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make > > > > > > > > > > > > > > money. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and- > > > > > > > > > > > > > the-economics-of-high-speed-railways > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to > > > > > > > > > > > > > cover its > > > > > > > > > > > > > development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year > > > > > > > > > > > > > after year. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have > > > > > > > > > > > > said, "in > > > > > > > > > > > > the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet > > > > > > > > > > > > trains, but > > > > > > > > > > > > again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in > > > > > > > > > > > > the US > > > > > > > > > > > > aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all > > > > > > > > > > > > practical > > > > > > > > > > > > purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger > > > > > > > > > > > > railroads. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support > > > > > > > > > > > > subsidies > > > > > > > > > > > > of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a > > > > > > > > > > > > delicate > > > > > > > > > > > > balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > worth > > > > > > > > > > > > the expense, others aren't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes > > > > > > > > > > > down to > > > > > > > > > > > geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well > > > > > > > > > > > in some > > > > > > > > > > > countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they > > > > > > > > > > > discuss > > > > > > > > > > > failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all > > > > > > > > > > traveling > > > > > > > > > > from one place to another). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon > > > > > > > > > Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must > > > > > > > > > live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail > > > > > > > > > goes. > > > > > > > > > Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All > > > > > > > > > that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this > > > > > > > > > case, > > > > > > > > > would be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large > > > > > > > > cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between > > > > > > > > those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any > > > > > > > > kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the > > > > > > > next > > > > > > > one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the meaning > > > > > > of "few"? > > > > > > > > > > It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through > > > > > there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with San > > > > > Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way back up > > > > > the > > > > > other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are many other areas in > > > > > the > > > > > US that are like that. > > > > > > > > OMG! Do people have to spell out everything for you? Ok, replace city with > > > > "Metropolitan Area". > > > > > > > > > Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial > > > > > areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People can't > > > > > afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to work > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > Not "any" or anything like it. I supposed you can count the subway as > > > > passenger rail, them I won't argue against that. But when we have been > > > > discussing passenger train service, local metropolitan subway service > > > > hasn't > > > > been included. The longer distance rail service is usually subsidized or > > > > it > > > > wouldn't exist. No one is willing to pay for it at full price. > > > > > > > > > However, the infrastructure is often so messed up that rail is no longer > > > > > a > > > > > viable option. > > > > > > > > Don't know what you mean by that, don't care. It is what it is. The > > > > problem isn't infrastructure, the problem is the location and density of > > > > people in the US isn't like Europe. > > > > > > Bits of it are very like Europe, and they are the areas that could use > > > European style passenger rail services. The norther-eastern corridor is > > > the obvious example, but California has a least two areas that could use > > > it. > > > > > > Australia - as whole - has a tenth of the population density of the US > > > (and a hundredth of that of Europe), but it's still one of the most > > > urbanised countries in the world, and both Sydney and Melbourne have > > > extensive passenger rail services - heavy rail - to get commuters in and > > > out of the city centres. Melbourne also had trams from early on, as did > > > Sydney, until it dumped them, but Sydney is now spending a lot on > > > installing light rail to service some of the inner suburbs. > > > > > > > Here metropolitan areas are usually like molds on a culture. Mostly they > > > > started at a point and grew out into a large disc some distance to the > > > > next. > In Europe there were many small towns that started an hour or > > > > two walk from > > > > each other along roads and they coalesced into a large metropolitan area.. > > > > Perfect for interconnection by rail. Here we have much longer distances > > > > between metro areas and rail often takes too long to be useful. So we fly. > > > > > > Twaddle. Urban development in the US largely preceded the development of > > > any kind of mass transport. In both the US and Europe, old cities got a > > > lot more population after mass transport made it practical. > > > > > > America made different choices in the late 1930's largely because the > > > monopolistic antics of the National City Lines company > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy > > > > > > It was an epic pratfall, and ever since then Americans have been denying > > > how thoroughly their public transport got trashed by these antics. > > > > > > In this case, the American exception was an exceptional vulnerability to > > > commercial crookedness. Population density doesn't actually come into it, > > > though bone-headedness of the people who sat on their hands while their > > > public transport got trashed deserves some attention. > > > > Yes, I can see why you have so much trouble with this. You don't seem to > > get the difference between the railroads we have been discussing and street > > cars. > > I can see why you are having such a problem with this - you don't understand > the problem well enough to realise that there is a continuum of travel > requirements, ranging from inner-city commuters who are well served by street > cars (which much of the world calls trams) through outer suburbs commuters > who are better served by heavy rail, to long distance commuters and business > travelers, who benefit from fast and direct access to central business > district of their destination. > > The bus maniacs who gutted US public transport also gutted the central > railway stations that distributed the outer-suburbs and longer distance > commuters. > > In any sensible city, the airport has some kind of rail link to the centre of > town, but I can't remember any, anywhere in the US. Boston. Chicago. NYC. Washington DC. These are ones that I have personally visited and ridden that rail. There are many more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 21:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p1sbrv$eip$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #489307 |
Joseph Gwinn wrote on 12/25/2017 8:38 PM: > On Dec 25, 2017, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote > (in article<1dcbb7c1-1cd4-493f-8ae5-026113a41a56@googlegroups.com>): > >> On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 1:58:03 AM UTC+11, rickman wrote: >>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote on 12/25/2017 8:48 AM: >>>> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: >>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 6:15 PM: >>>>>> On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: >>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: >>>>>>>> On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg<news@analogconsultants.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not freight. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cover its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year >>>>>>>>>>>>>> after year. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have >>>>>>>>>>>>> said, "in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet >>>>>>>>>>>>> trains, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the US >>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all >>>>>>>>>>>>> practical >>>>>>>>>>>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger >>>>>>>>>>>>> railroads. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support >>>>>>>>>>>>> subsidies >>>>>>>>>>>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a >>>>>>>>>>>>> delicate >>>>>>>>>>>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines >>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>> worth >>>>>>>>>>>>> the expense, others aren't. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes >>>>>>>>>>>> down to >>>>>>>>>>>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well >>>>>>>>>>>> in some >>>>>>>>>>>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss >>>>>>>>>>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all >>>>>>>>>>> traveling >>>>>>>>>>> from one place to another). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon >>>>>>>>>> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must >>>>>>>>>> live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail >>>>>>>>>> goes. >>>>>>>>>> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All >>>>>>>>>> that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this >>>>>>>>>> case, >>>>>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large >>>>>>>>> cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between >>>>>>>>> those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any >>>>>>>>> kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the >>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>> one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the meaning >>>>>>> of "few"? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through >>>>>> there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with San >>>>>> Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way back up >>>>>> the >>>>>> other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are many other areas in >>>>>> the >>>>>> US that are like that. >>>>> >>>>> OMG! Do people have to spell out everything for you? Ok, replace city with >>>>> "Metropolitan Area". >>>>> >>>>>> Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial >>>>>> areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People can't >>>>>> afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to work >>>>>> there. >>>>> >>>>> Not "any" or anything like it. I supposed you can count the subway as >>>>> passenger rail, them I won't argue against that. But when we have been >>>>> discussing passenger train service, local metropolitan subway service >>>>> hasn't >>>>> been included. The longer distance rail service is usually subsidized or >>>>> it >>>>> wouldn't exist. No one is willing to pay for it at full price. >>>>> >>>>>> However, the infrastructure is often so messed up that rail is no longer >>>>>> a >>>>>> viable option. >>>>> >>>>> Don't know what you mean by that, don't care. It is what it is. The >>>>> problem isn't infrastructure, the problem is the location and density of >>>>> people in the US isn't like Europe. >>>> >>>> Bits of it are very like Europe, and they are the areas that could use >>>> European style passenger rail services. The norther-eastern corridor is >>>> the obvious example, but California has a least two areas that could use >>>> it. >>>> >>>> Australia - as whole - has a tenth of the population density of the US >>>> (and a hundredth of that of Europe), but it's still one of the most >>>> urbanised countries in the world, and both Sydney and Melbourne have >>>> extensive passenger rail services - heavy rail - to get commuters in and >>>> out of the city centres. Melbourne also had trams from early on, as did >>>> Sydney, until it dumped them, but Sydney is now spending a lot on >>>> installing light rail to service some of the inner suburbs. >>>> >>>>> Here metropolitan areas are usually like molds on a culture. Mostly they >>>>> started at a point and grew out into a large disc some distance to the >>>>> next. > In Europe there were many small towns that started an hour or >>>>> two walk from >>>>> each other along roads and they coalesced into a large metropolitan area.. >>>>> Perfect for interconnection by rail. Here we have much longer distances >>>>> between metro areas and rail often takes too long to be useful. So we fly. >>>> >>>> Twaddle. Urban development in the US largely preceded the development of >>>> any kind of mass transport. In both the US and Europe, old cities got a >>>> lot more population after mass transport made it practical. >>>> >>>> America made different choices in the late 1930's largely because the >>>> monopolistic antics of the National City Lines company >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy >>>> >>>> It was an epic pratfall, and ever since then Americans have been denying >>>> how thoroughly their public transport got trashed by these antics. >>>> >>>> In this case, the American exception was an exceptional vulnerability to >>>> commercial crookedness. Population density doesn't actually come into it, >>>> though bone-headedness of the people who sat on their hands while their >>>> public transport got trashed deserves some attention. >>> >>> Yes, I can see why you have so much trouble with this. You don't seem to >>> get the difference between the railroads we have been discussing and street >>> cars. >> >> I can see why you are having such a problem with this - you don't understand >> the problem well enough to realise that there is a continuum of travel >> requirements, ranging from inner-city commuters who are well served by street >> cars (which much of the world calls trams) through outer suburbs commuters >> who are better served by heavy rail, to long distance commuters and business >> travelers, who benefit from fast and direct access to central business >> district of their destination. >> >> The bus maniacs who gutted US public transport also gutted the central >> railway stations that distributed the outer-suburbs and longer distance >> commuters. >> >> In any sensible city, the airport has some kind of rail link to the centre of >> town, but I can't remember any, anywhere in the US. > > Boston. Chicago. NYC. Washington DC. These are ones that I have personally > visited and ridden that rail. There are many more. What rail have you ridden in DC? The rail in DC serves a very tiny proportion of the commuting population and has very limited schedules. Conversely, the local metro rail runs a full commuting schedule and works well at reasonable prices, although they are subsidized. The railroads that are inconvenienced by having to provide passenger would much prefer it disappeared. The few people using it would not be horribly inconvenienced. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 18:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a38b55c5-9947-460c-aeb8-05464ab66fc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #489308 |
On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 1:24:06 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > Joseph Gwinn wrote on 12/25/2017 8:38 PM: > > On Dec 25, 2017, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote > > (in article<1dcbb7c1-1cd4-493f-8ae5-026113a41a56@googlegroups.com>): > > > >> On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 1:58:03 AM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > >>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote on 12/25/2017 8:48 AM: > >>>> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > >>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 6:15 PM: > >>>>>> On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: > >>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: > >>>>>>>> On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg<news@analogconsultants.com> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not freight. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money. It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passenger service. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> over its development and running costs". They are clocking in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> profits year after year. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have > >>>>>>>>>>>>> said, "in the US". Of course it is possible with something like > >>>>>>>>>>>>> bullet trains, but again we are discussing existing rail > >>>>>>>>>>>>> service. The railroads in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the US aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for all practical purposes in the US, there will not be > >>>>>>>>>>>>> profitable passenger railroads. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support > >>>>>>>>>>>>> subsidiesof specific rail routes. But they don't seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to work well with a delicate balance between how much subsidy > >>>>>>>>>>>>> band how much usage. Some lines are worth > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the expense, others aren't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes > >>>>>>>>>>>> down to geographics and population density. > >>>>>>>>>>>> It’s going to work very well in some countries > >>>>>>>>>>>> and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they discuss > >>>>>>>>>>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all > >>>>>>>>>>> traveling from one place to another). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon > >>>>>>>>>> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they > >>>>>>>>>> must live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than > >>>>>>>>>> lightrail goes. > >>>>>>>>>> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. > >>>>>>>>>> All that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in > >>>>>>>>>> this case, would be. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large > >>>>>>>>> cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between > >>>>>>>>> those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any > >>>>>>>>> kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the > >>>>>>>> next one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There > >>>>>>>> can't be because it would be a colossal waste of financial > >>>>>>>> opportunity to let any land sit idle > >>>>>>>> (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the > >>>>>>> meaning of "few"? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through > >>>>>> there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with > >>>>>> San Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way > >>>>>> back up the other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are > >>>>>> many other areas in the US that are like that. > >>>>> > >>>>> OMG! Do people have to spell out everything for you? Ok, replace city > >>>>> with "Metropolitan Area". > >>>>> > >>>>>> Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial > >>>>>> areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People > >>>>>> can't afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to > >>>>>> work there. > >>>>> > >>>>> Not "any" or anything like it. I supposed you can count the subway as > >>>>> passenger rail, them I won't argue against that. But when we have been > >>>>> discussing passenger train service, local metropolitan subway service > >>>>> hasn't been included. The longer distance rail service is usually > >>>>> subsidized or it wouldn't exist. No one is willing to pay for it at full > >>>>> price. > >>>>> > >>>>>> However, the infrastructure is often so messed up that rail is no > >>>>>> longer a viable option. > >>>>> > >>>>> Don't know what you mean by that, don't care. It is what it is. The > >>>>> problem isn't infrastructure, the problem is the location and density of > >>>>> people in the US isn't like Europe. > >>>> > >>>> Bits of it are very like Europe, and they are the areas that could use > >>>> European style passenger rail services. The norther-eastern corridor is > >>>> the obvious example, but California has a least two areas that could use > >>>> it. > >>>> > >>>> Australia - as whole - has a tenth of the population density of the US > >>>> (and a hundredth of that of Europe), but it's still one of the most > >>>> urbanised countries in the world, and both Sydney and Melbourne have > >>>> extensive passenger rail services - heavy rail - to get commuters in and > >>>> out of the city centres. Melbourne also had trams from early on, as did > >>>> Sydney, until it dumped them, but Sydney is now spending a lot on > >>>> installing light rail to service some of the inner suburbs. > >>>> > >>>>> Here metropolitan areas are usually like molds on a culture. Mostly they > >>>>> started at a point and grew out into a large disc some distance to the > >>>>> next. > In Europe there were many small towns that started an hour or > >>>>> two walk from each other along roads and they coalesced into a large > >>>>> metropolitan area.. > >>>>> Perfect for interconnection by rail. Here we have much longer distances > >>>>> between metro areas and rail often takes too long to be useful. So we > >>>>> fly. > >>>> > >>>> Twaddle. Urban development in the US largely preceded the development of > >>>> any kind of mass transport. In both the US and Europe, old cities got a > >>>> lot more population after mass transport made it practical. > >>>> > >>>> America made different choices in the late 1930's largely because the > >>>> monopolistic antics of the National City Lines company > >>>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines > >>>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy > >>>> > >>>> It was an epic pratfall, and ever since then Americans have been denying > >>>> how thoroughly their public transport got trashed by these antics. > >>>> > >>>> In this case, the American exception was an exceptional vulnerability to > >>>> commercial crookedness. Population density doesn't actually come into it, > >>>> though bone-headedness of the people who sat on their hands while their > >>>> public transport got trashed deserves some attention. > >>> > >>> Yes, I can see why you have so much trouble with this. You don't seem to > >>> get the difference between the railroads we have been discussing and > >>> street cars. > >> > >> I can see why you are having such a problem with this - you don't > >> understand the problem well enough to realise that there is a continuum of > >> travel requirements, ranging from inner-city commuters who are well served > >> by street cars (which much of the world calls trams) through outer suburbs > >> commuters who are better served by heavy rail, to long distance commuters > >> and business travelers, who benefit from fast and direct access to central > >> business district of their destination. > >> > >> The bus maniacs who gutted US public transport also gutted the central > >> railway stations that distributed the outer-suburbs and longer distance > >> commuters. > >> > >> In any sensible city, the airport has some kind of rail link to the centre > >> of town, but I can't remember any, anywhere in the US. > > > > Boston. Chicago. NYC. Washington DC. These are ones that I have personally > > visited and ridden that rail. There are many more. > > What rail have you ridden in DC? The rail in DC serves a very tiny > proportion of the commuting population and has very limited schedules. If it had less limited schedules (and more limited stop schedules) it would probably serve a lot more of the commuting population. The fact that you've a rudimentary which hardly anybody uses isn't any kind of evidence that a bettere service wouldn't have more customers > Conversely, the local metro rail runs a full commuting schedule and works > well at reasonable prices, although they are subsidized. The railroads that > are inconvenienced by having to provide passenger service would much prefer it > disappeared. The few people using it would not be horribly inconvenienced. If you've never been able to exploit fast city-centre to city-centre travel you aren't going to miss it. If it wasn't such an administrative hassle to set up the railways might be more enthusiastic about providing it. California's bullet train does seem to have quite a lot of support - not Jeorg's since he fears having to pay for it and can't imagine using it. A little international travel might help your imagination. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 19:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ebeaf312-16be-4abe-ac01-fe62375ce6ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #489307 |
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 5:39:04 PM UTC-8, Joseph Gwinn wrote: > On Dec 25, 2017, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote > > In any sensible city, the airport has some kind of rail link to the centre of > > town, but I can't remember any, anywhere in the US. > > Boston. Chicago. NYC. Washington DC. These are ones that I have personally > visited and ridden that rail. There are many more. In DC, the larger airport, Dulles, only has bus service; it's the small Ronald Reagan airport that has a subway Metro link; . The subway links to the Amtrak train station, too. Seattle is now light-rail linked, from the airport to Amtrak station, through city center (and someday, to three blocks from where I'm sitting).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-26 00:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ral0C.24428$ow.21564@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #489314 |
whit3rd wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 5:39:04 PM UTC-8, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 2017, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote
>
>>> In any sensible city, the airport has some kind of rail link to the centre of
>>> town, but I can't remember any, anywhere in the US.
>>
>> Boston. Chicago. NYC. Washington DC. These are ones that I have personally
>> visited and ridden that rail. There are many more.
>
> In DC, the larger airport, Dulles, only has bus service; it's the small
> Ronald Reagan airport that has a subway Metro link; . The subway links
> to the Amtrak train station, too.
>
> Seattle is now light-rail linked, from the airport to Amtrak station, through city center
> (and someday, to three blocks from where I'm sitting).
Subways would be interesting around here. They would have to figure
out how to build them in the Florida Aquifer. It would cause lots of
sinkholes, and the subway tube would have to be watertight.
They lost a brand new earth mover while building the Hwy19 & Hwy441
interchange in Eustis, decades ago. A large hole opened under it, and it
was gone before they could try to rescue it. They have to drive pilings
down to bedrock to build large buildings, in Central Florida. If they
down, they break apart and sink into the ground. Can you imagine the
added costs, to build a high speed rail system?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web